The Daily Record, meanwhile, have changed their URL as well as the headline (or their content management system has done it for them). 3am haven’t changed anything (see image at top).

A further issue occurs here too: comments posted on the original Sun story remain, but now – under a now more sober report – these appear insensitive.

More recent commenters can be seen criticising these older comments, and without any notice on the article that it has been updated, those commenting under their real names could argue that their reputations are being damaged as a result.

Certainly there’s an ethical issue here: if you change a story so substantially that original comments now no longer apply, should you remove them?

First, when an article is fundamentally altered, as this one was by the Sun, it should not be kept on the original URL. That leads to reader confusion (e.g. the URL and the headline not matching and the comments being no longer in context).

But it does two things for the publisher: it erases evidence of the original (insensitive) story and it capitalizes on referral traffic to the original (insensitive) story. Good reasons, if you don’t care much about being honest with your readers.

If the Sun had created a new article, the comments on the original article would still be seen in their proper context, and we wouldn’t have to talk about removing comments.

Second, what is wrong with the Sun (yes, that’s a rhetorical question) that they would have published such rubbish in the first place?

Ensure that eyewash stations and safety showers are proximal to the work-station location.
So, take proper precautions and grout your tiles with perfection.
Due to the filler the surface of the floor looks smooth and due to
the buffing of the floor the surface of the floor becomes shiny
and hence more beautiful.